ArticleBMJ open2025
What is the impact of a shift to remote consultations? A qualitative interview study in primary and secondary healthcare.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Telehealth Vs. Face-to-Face Treatment for Children and Adolescents With Obesity: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Pediatric obesity · 2026Trial
- Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe COVID-19 pandemic prompted a significant increase in the use of remote consultations-by telephone or video-in both primary and secondary healthcare. The reported advantages of remote consulting for both patients and clinicians include greater efficiency, flexibility and convenience. However, disadvantages, such as the uncertainty created by a loss of face-to-face contact, have also been highlighted. The aim of this study was to explore, explain and interpret patients' and clinicians' perceptions and experiences of remote consultations and assist decision-making about their future use.
designA qualitative study based on semistructured online interviews.
settingPrimary mental healthcare or secondary care cardiology services, London, UK, February-March 2022.
participantsPrimary care mental health patients (n=5), primary care clinicians (general practitioners) (n=15), secondary care cardiology patients (n=9) and secondary care cardiology clinicians (n=5).
resultsThe results demonstrate that a range of factors have influenced the experiences of both clinicians and patients and indicate shifts in the norms of professional practice and clinician-patient relationships.
conclusionsPatients and clinicians demonstrated pragmatic acceptance of remote consultations and, looking forward, a preference for a balanced 'hybrid model' of remote and face-to-face appointments. The study also highlights a need to consolidate and build on the informal learning and adaptation to remote consulting that has already taken place.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.